It would appear the time has come to gear up for another political skirmish in Canada. And I use the term “skirmish” with the utter disappointment of a politically-interested individual who has just reached the age of eligibility to vote in my country who has just been forced to take a rather bitter pill of cynicism.

And just what is that pill? Evidence that all politicians (at least in modern Canada) are the same. While I know this is a very broad generalization, this clip and others like it do little to encourage me to think that this upcoming election has any hope of moving Canada forward as a nation.

Why? Because I felt like Harper was one of the few politicians who had established a trend of actually campaigning around policies rather than the opposition’s flaws. In the previous two election campaigns, the conservative platform seemed less than willing to stoop to the level of Paul Martin in his attempt to deface his opponents. Rather, he introduced ideas that seemed to at least move in some direction, as opposed to simply remaining stagnant because the alternatives seem flawed. Not only that, but Harper, while he shifted certain policies to an extend, seemed in general to build upon the previous campaign as opposed to scrapping it in order to gain power. He proved willing to patiently allow the Liberals to shoot themselves in the proverbial feet, and then to follow up by offering sound alternatives to the collapsing Paul Martin Liberals.

On top of Harper’s previous competency as a campaigner, the new Liberal leader Dion seems to be far more likely to establish a sound platform than his predecessor, which could have made for an enticing election race. With two strong debaters taking opposite sides of the major issues, the key to winning this election could actually be innovation and not media-bashing. To have two political stances based around improving conditions in the country would set up the ideal minority government, if the two sides could come to some sense of compromise instead of putting up blocks in order to regain or maintain power. While I know that this latter notion is slightly more optimistic than is feasible, the time has never been riper for the Conservatives and Liberals to work together, with there being little in the way of viable alternatives in other parties, at this point in time. The NDP seems to be fading away, the Green party rising, but neither truly a candidate on a scale that could compete with either of the major parties. If both the Conservatives and Liberals were split almost evenly down the house, the potential for cooperation would be incredible.

But, Harper is stooping to political goon tactics. Sigh…

Hopefully, the polls shock Harper into reinstating some valid sense of policy.


3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Stephen
    Feb 05, 2007 @ 19:24:00

    I’ve seen two of the ads, during yesterday’s Superbowl game. The one you link to is the one that most disappoints me. It shows the worst moment from Stephane Dion’s run for Liberal leader — the only time that he lost his cool during a debate.

    And this is the danger of leadership debates. Your opponents (in this case, Michael Ignatieff) criticize you during the leadership campaign, and then the political opposition drags it up again after you’ve been elected leader.

    Harper is Machiavellian. Presumably he sincerely holds to Conservative values; but his primary commitment is to winning the next election. Which makes him the same as every other politician — but that’s precisely what you find disillusioning.


  2. Knotwurth Mentioning
    Feb 06, 2007 @ 13:35:00

    I guess that is what disappoints me the most. While I have studied some of Machiavelli’s work in political studies, I cannot say I agree with the logic of Machiavellian leaders in a democratic society. Yes, under the old monarchies, maintaining power at the cost of morals may have a certain amount of value to it, in that it establishes order in a way that was certainly lacking for the latter part of monarchy’s dominance of the political world.

    But the thing is, a democracy is based on the order coming from the system, and to me, the system functions at its prime potential when it offers a number of viable options to the people, and the people get to choose which they believe is the most liable to lead the country in the right direction. While I understand Harper’s desire to maintain power for his own sake, it does not have the merit that Machiavelli’s ideology does because order would be served further by Harper presenting logical points than it is by him trying to discredit the opposition.


  3. itoshii_baka
    Feb 06, 2007 @ 14:02:00

    I will now summarize all that you have said in one sentence:

    If you want to lead our country, show us that you’re productive!!!!!

    I am done. Silly you, and your looooong meandering sentences. *sigh* I’m way too brief to write long essays when I believe the answer is cut and dry.

    So there. I posted. 😀


    Darnit! Why can’t there be an “edit” option for those who are finicky about these things?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: